Punjab State Human Rights vs Union Territory of Chandigarh

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—Is the provision in Rule 2(h) that excludes amongst others the Chairman and Members of the Punjab Human Rights Commission from the category of employees who are eligible for the allotment of houses from the general pool arbitrary and, thus, violative of Article 14 ? This is the short question.

On June 28, 1996 the Chandigarh Administration promulgated the Rules regarding the allotment of houses. These Rules are called the Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996. Rule 2 gives the definitions. Clause (h) defines the Eligible Employee as under :-

"(h) "Eligible Employee" means an employee of the eligible office of the Government of Punjab, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh Administration or of Punjab and Haryana High Court working on regular basis in an eligible office or on foreign service al Chandigarh, Panchkula or Mohali as long as he retains lien on a post in an eligible office."

This provision was initially amended on June 2, 1997. A second amendment was made on July, 28, 1998. Today, the provision reads thus :-

"(h) "Eligible Employee" means an employee of the eligible office of the Government of Punjab, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh Administration or of Punjab and Haryana High Court working on regular basis in an eligible office or on foreign service at Chandigarh, Panchkula or Mohali as long as he retains lien on a post in an eligible office. [Mayor of the Municipal Corporation as also the employees of the Chandigarh Administration transferred to the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh] [except the Chair- man/President/Members of various Commissions/Boards/Consumer Forums etc. set up by the States of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh Administration.]"

A perusal of the above provision shows that the Chairman/President/Members of various Commissions/Boards/Consumer Forums etc. set up by the Slates of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh Administration have been excluded from the category of employees who are eligible for the allotment of houses out of the general pool.

The Punjab State Human Rights Commission has filed this petition to challenge the amendment of July 28, 1998 by which its Chairman and members have been excluded from the category of Eligible Employees. On coming to know of the amendment the petitioner requested the Administration to reconsider the matter. However, the request was declined vide letter dated January 18, 1999. The Commission maintains that the action of the respondents in excluding the members from the category of Eligible Employees is wholly arbitrary, irrational and thus illegal.

The Commission has been set up on a permanent basis. Only the Chief Justice of a High Court is eligible for appointment as the Chairperson. Similarly, qualifications for appointment of members have been statutorily laid down. The Commission has been accordingly constituted. The petitioner has averred that one of the Members was earlier working as a Financial Commissioner with the Government. He was occupying house No. 39 in Sector 4. He had taken pre-mature retirement to join the Commission as a Member. In pursuance to the impugned provision the allotment of the house in his favour was cancelled and proceedings for his eviction were initiated. Certain other instances have also been given. The Commission maintains that !he action of the respondents is wholly untenable and should, thus, be quashed. It prays that the amendment made vide notification dated July 28, 1998 be annulled.

A written statement has been filed on behalf ofthe respondents. It has been stated that there is a scarcity of houses. The Administration has limited number of houses. It has to cater to the needs of its own officers as also of the two States of Punjab, Haryana and the High Court. The pressure on the Government accommodation being too high it had to make the amended provision.

On an oral request of the counsel for the petitioner the State of Punjab was impleaded as a party. A reply has been filed on its behalf.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned amendment is wholly arbitrary and, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by Mr. Subhash Goyal, appearing for the Chandigarh Administration and its officers.

It is, undoubtedly, correct that Article 14 permits classification. However, it is equally settled that the classification must have a reasonable nexus with the object which is sought to be achieved. What is the position in the present case ?

The members of Commissions, Boards and Consumer Forums are like other employees working in connection with the affairs of the State. Why have they been excluded from the category of Eligible Employees ? The only reason as disclosed by the respondents is the shortage of houses. This reason exists for all the employees. The fact is obvious from the data given in the affidavit dated February 15, 2000. It is as under :-

Lower category of Houses

Type

Total Applicants

House Allotted

Applicants

Type-1

666

71

595

Type-13

869

255

614

Type-11

690

91

599

Type 12

477

175

302

Type-III

629

74

455

Type-II

543

85

358

Type-IV

61

30

31

Higher Category of Houses

Type

Applicants

Allotted

Applicants

Type-4/5

2

2

Type-6

25

2

23

Type-7

21

1

20

Type-8

67

24

43

Typc-9

74

41

33

Type-V

22

11

11"

A perusal of the above data clearly shows that there is an acute shortage of all categories of houses. In certain categories the number of houses is far below the needs of the Administration. The demand is certainly more. The houses are less than the required number. But what can be the solution ? To construct more houses and not to exclude those who had been eligible hithertofore.

Are the members of the Commissions different from the members of the State or the All India Services ? Why can''t the members of the Commissions or Boards be allowed to stand in the queue along with the other Civil Servants who have to wait for long time for the allotment of houses ? Why should the members of the Commissions or Boards be treated differently from the other eligible employees ? The written statement discloses no reason. Even the official record produced by Mr. Subhash Goyal on which the decision regarding (he amendment was taken does not disclose any reason whatsoever. It appears from the file that the Secretary of the House Allotment Committee (Upper) had proposed that the Members/Chairman of the Boards and Commissions be excluded. This proposal was accepted without disclosing any reason whatsoever.

In this country we face shortages in every field except the human population. There is shortage of seats in schools. There is an acute shortage of beds in hospitals. Similarly, there is shortage of Government accommodation. An exclusion can be justified only for valid reasons. In the present case, no reason for excluding the Members or Chairman of the Commissions or Boards etc. has been disclosed. Thus, there appears to be no rational basis for the impugned provision.

A fact which deserves mention is thay there is shortage of houses even in the Capital of India viz. Delhi. Yet, the Government of India has vide its Memorandum dated December 24, 1996 declared that the members of the National Human Rights Commission shall be "an Eligible Body for allotment of general pool office as well as residential accommodation". Consequently, it has been directed that "the sfaff including Chairman, Members etc. will be eligible for allotment of general pool residential accommodation subject to other prescribed conditions for allotment". In Chandigarh the instructions of the Government of India are invariably followed. Why has the Administration adopted a different yardstick in respect of the State Human Rights Commission ? No reason for adoption of a different yardstick has been disclosed either in the written statement or at the hearing. In our view, the mere fact that there is shortage of accommodation cannot form a valid basis for exclusion.

The Administration has an undoubted right to classify the employees. But such classification must have a reasonable relationship with the object which is sought to be achieved. In the present case, no basis for classification has been disclosed. Thus, the exclusion which was introduced by the amendment of July 28, 1988, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P5 with the writ petition, cannot be sustained.

Mr. Subhash Goyal submits that the proposal for exclusion was initiated at the instance of the Chief Secretary Punjab. It may be so. However, the manner of initiation of the proposal would not justify the provision unless a valid basis is made out. None having been disclosed, we are unable to sustain the impugned notification.

Another fact which deserves notice is that the members of the Commissions etc. and the different Services are working in connection with the affairs of the State. They exist to provide different services to the citizen. The label of office is not relevant. The content and purpose being akin, a differential treatment to the members cannot be sustained. Especially when no reason has been given.

No other point has been raised.

In view of the above, we answer the question in the affirmative and allow the writ petition. The impugned amendment by which the Chairperson and members of the Commissions etc. have been excluded from the category of ''Eligible Employees'' issued vide notification dated July 28, 1998, a copy of which has been produced at Annexure P5 with the writ petition, is declared as ultra vires the Constitution and set aside. No order as to costs.

Petition allowed.